Political Correctness Gone too Far

Boys will be girls, as they say in Sweden, especially if you're Toys R Us. The firm's Swedish franchise has been through its Christmas catalogue and made it gender-neutral. Boys now pucker up to the camera clutching baby dolls. Girls wave guns at the reader to reassure us that females can be violent too.

It is difficult to be surprised. Sweden's anti-discrimination laws are as bizarre as they are magical. Hairdressers are not allowed to vary their prices based on gender, putting up the price of a short-back-and-sides towards the £50 mark. Taxis which used to offer special rates to single women going home late at night have been told to stop. Women can swim topless in public pools unless there is a law to require men cover their nipples. Stockholm District Court recently ruled that pregnancy was an illness. Activists are pushing to end gender specific pronouns in the language. More men than women now complain to the discrimination ombudsman.

How effective is this? Well, men still earn 35pc more than women at 20, which narrows to 24pc at 60 years old. This is despite women being better educated and a culture which strongly discourages stay-at-home mothers. Women face the highest rate of rape in Europe and a high rate of domestic violence (although lower than the British rate).

Man, this is insane. Does anyone think this Cultural Marxism? Why aren't these men and women allowed to express themselves as they wish without being called a bigot or privileged? Sure, nobody should be discriminated against and it shouldn't be encouraged, but stuff like this seems....inhuman. It doesn't matter which country these sorts of things take place in, as the principles behind these policies ought to be attacked. Free expression is being silenced under the guise of egalitarianism.

In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.

The problem with the internet is parallel to its greatest achievement: it has given the little man an outlet where he can be heard. Most of the time however, the little man is a little man because he is not worth hearing.
Want to chat with people who aren't idiots? Join our IRC.

Man, this is insane. Does anyone think this Cultural Marxism? Why aren't these men and women allowed to express themselves as they wish without being called a bigot or privileged? Sure, nobody should be discriminated against and it shouldn't be encouraged, but stuff like this seems....inhuman. It doesn't matter which country these sorts of things take place in, as the principles behind these policies ought to be attacked. Free expression is being silenced under the guise of egalitarianism.

The toys r us thing is something that is actively challenging your pre-conceived gender roles.

Some of those do seem a bit silly, but I can understand why they're doing it. The intentions are noble, even if some of the outcomes are a bit odd.

For example, I have absolutely no problems with boys being pictured with dolls, or girls with toy guns. Boys and girls should be allowed to play with whatever toys they want to, regardless of silly gender restrictions imposed by society.

Examples of the silly ones though would be the hairdressing one (since from what I understand, the price divide is more about how long it takes to style the hair, rather than the gender of the person having their hair styled; women generally ask for more complicated stuff, while men generally ask for something simple, quick, and easy), and the stopping of the special rate for single women in taxis. Since I'd understand that's about keeping her safe while late at night. Though arguably, men could also use the same treatment, since there are plenty of cases of men getting into drunken fights (or being beaten up by drunken thugs) when walking home at night.

Eh, it's a difficult situation. I understand the reasons for why they're doing this, and dismissing this as 'political correctness gone too far' seems wrong to me. Even though yeah, some of the examples are a bit OTT.

Also, about the removal of gender pronouns: not quite as crazy as you'd think.

In my job in the income protection insurance business, I see a lot of policy documents. Official documents, very important. You will not find a single use of female pronouns in the entire thing. It is all 'he and his', all male. Even when referring to potentially female claimants.

There's a clause that states that the male pronoun usage is intended to refer to any claimant, but what message does it send? Males are important enough to mention, females not? Is it really so difficult to replace every male pronoun to the more gender neutral 'their' and 'them'?

I don't know. I can understand why it seems so OTT and crazy, but all these little subconscious clues build up without you even realising.